1. Field of the Invention
My invention relates to infant incubators.
The purpose of this teaching is to add new matter to the parent application (Ser. No. 10/908,861).
My invention relates to a vented microcradle for use in an incubator system specifically designed to maintain a premature infant in a controlled care environment from creation to implantation. The incubator system is thus an engineered environment specifically designed for the care of human embryos and hatchlings.
A human infant is properly termed an embryo only from creation until hatching, and then from hatching until implantation he or she is termed a hatchling. Hatching is a milestone of human development in which the embryo makes a hole in the shell of the human egg and then escapes in an extrusive behavior. Hatching is a prerequisite to implantation. Incorrect definitions of the term embryo have persisted due to ignorance of the human hatching event.
Nidation is another word for implantation. A human infant is termed a prenid (PRE-nid) from creation to implantation. The word prenid is derived by shortening of pre-nidation, which means pre-implantation, and prenidial (pre-NID-e-al) is the adjectival form. The term prenid is convenient because it encompasses both human embryos and hatchlings. According to this etymology, the uterine cavity is the nest (Latin nidus, from which the term nidation is derived) and the settlement the infant makes in the nest at implantation time is called the nidia (compare Latin colonus, colonia). Hence, prenidal (pre-NIGH-dal) would mean before the infant has entered the uterine cavity, whereas prenidial means before the infant has actually implanted.
Prenidial gestation refers to a maternal, bodily provision for prenidial development as well as to prenidial developmental needs in general, whereas prenidial incubation refers to an engineered provision for development outside the maternal body in a manner analogous to natural gestation. Whether due to preterm delivery or external creation, outside the maternal body prenids are premature infants because it is premature for them to be outside the maternal body on their own.
Sophisticated incubator systems for premature infants prior to implantation are termed prenidial incubators. Prenidial incubators are analogous to neonatal incubators, except they relate to patient care for prenids instead of for neonates.
My invention relates to a vented microcradle for a prenidial incubator, more specifically a side-vented microcradle for a prenidial incubator.
2. Prior Art
Historically and to the present, medicine has had trouble understanding the principles of thermoregulation needed to care for infants in incubators. Time and again practitioners have made the basic mistake of confusing a patient's temperature with the ambient temperature of the environment inside the incubator. To finally be clear on this, it is incorrect to measure the quantity corresponding to the temperature inside an incubator and to interpret it as data corresponding to the variable of the patient's own temperature! Instead, the patient's temperature must be monitored distinctly in contrast to the temperature of the patient's environment.
Another key ingredient for incubator competence is ventilation. A stagnant environment is not healthy and so a circulation of the environment is necessary. Though similar in principle, neonates and prenids differ in their ventilation requirements because neonates live in a gas/vapor phase environment whereas prenids live in a liquid phase environment. Prenids transfer all metabolic resources and wastes via an incubation medium in which they are submerged. Prenids require gentle fluidic ventilation, which means the incubation medium must be circulated around the infant to remove wastes and to refresh metabolic resources, but gently enough so that beneficial substances produced by the infant are not stripped away. Fluidic ventilation is provided in the fallopian tube by cilia and small muscular contractions that urge fluid to-and-fro past the infant.
My teaching in U.S. Pat. No. 6,694,175 introduces the competent manner of thermoregulation for infants in a prenidial incubator. My teaching in the parent application (Ser. No. 10/908,861) introduces the competent manner of ventilation for infants in a prenidial incubator. These teachings are incorporated here by way of reference. These teachings combine to establish prenidial incubation as a competent discipline for the care of infants prior to implantation. A thorough understanding of these teachings is prerequisite to the present disclosure. Thorough understanding of the discussions presented in papers found in the file wrappers of the corresponding applications, with particular emphasis on discussions of the prior art, is strongly recommended.
Following upon the parent disclosure (Ser. No. 10/908,861), this disclosure adds variety and complexity to the medical science of prenidial ventilation. In addition, because the medical and scientific communities continue to struggle helplessly with even the most basic concepts, the principles of prenidial thermoregulation are reviewed.
Genifection (JEN-ih-feck-shun) is the crime of using assisted reproductive technologies to create human embryos in an environment where they are unlikely to be cared for with full responsibility as individual patients, beloved family members, and equal members of society. The word is coined using Latin roots, by combining geni- (one's kind) with -fection (the making of, by artful means). Genifection is a terrible crime against humanity.
At present practitioners of in vitro fertilization rely heavily on genifection to compensate for their extremely poor success in incubating human embryos and hatchlings. Unable to reduce the tragic mortality rates that result from their poorly skilled incubation and transfer methods, practitioners of in vitro fertilization typically create a plurality of embryos so that the product of their numbers despite low survival rates will sometimes result in at least one survivor for the sake of entrepreneurial success. In other words, such practitioners use genifection to compensate commercially for their extremely poor medical and scientific practices.
In other cases, though comparatively less common, human embryos have been created in the lab with only their harm in mind, e.g., for experiments in stem cell research.
Please join me in putting an end to these dehumanizing crimes of genifection.
3. Statement of the Necessity
For a neonatal incubator, the cradle portion of the incubator must allow for easy access to a patient while at the same time affording proper thermoregulation and ventilation at all times. A well-designed prenidial incubator should offer the same advantages.
It may also be desirable to visualize an infant in a prenidial incubator from below as well as from above. A variety of vented microcradle is needed to satisfy this objective.
What is needed is a side-vented microcradle for a prenidial incubator, more specifically a side-vented microcradle with a clear bottom and an open top.
4. Note
A number of cited references were found after filing the original specification in Ser. No. 11/549,972. These are discussed in several papers available in the electronic file wrapper of that application. These are available online at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website using the public Patent Application Information Retrieval system (Public PAIR). Engineers should consider these papers along with the associated references. Note that the non-patent literature cited is available in the file wrapper under “NPL Documents”.
Of particular note, Matz (U.S. Pat. No. 2,062,468), Le Pesant et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4,569,575), and Tuckerman et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4,450,472) provide teachings in their respective arts that pre-date prior art references cited in the original specification of Ser. No. 11/549,972.
Referring to FIG. 105, Matz teaches a variable focus liquid lens; in contrast, teachings such as those of Berge et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,369,954) and Feenstra et al (U.S. Pat. No. 7,126,903) provide relatively modern examples of renewed interest in this art.
Referring to FIG. 106, Le Pesant et al teach a digital microfluidic system, and refer to an even earlier example of this art; in contrast, teachings such as that of Pamula et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,911,132) provide relatively modern examples of renewed interest in this art.
Tuckerman et al teach a use of microfluidics to cool integrated circuits.
Also of particular note, Petronis et al describe a microfluidic cell culture chip employing substantially planar layers laminated together. However, they do not employ an open-top microcradle design. (Petronis et al, “Transparent Polymeric Cell Culture Chip with Integrated Temperature Control and Uniform Media Perfusion,” BioTechniques, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 368-76, March 2006.) Noted is the abstract and FIG. 1, p. 369.
Kricka et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,296,375) teach a device made of micromachined glass layers comprising separate wells for holding sperm and egg separated by a swim-up channel for sperm. They employ pumps or capillarity to fill channels and wells and means such as a pump or syringe to expel a fertilized egg. (column 3, lines 51-64) They do not teach or fairly suggest fluidic ventilation of an embryo or hatchling.